ILNews

Tea party radio ad opposes David’s retention; Shepard gives backing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. has produced a radio advertisement critical of Justice Steven David ahead of his retention vote on Tuesday.

David, who was appointed to the court in 2010, has faced opposition due to his 2011 opinion in Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana. David wrote for a 3-2 majority that there was no right to reasonably resist unlawful residential entry by police. The Legislature reacted this year to public outcry, passing SEA 1, which said such a right does exist.

In response to the unusual opposition to a retention vote, David was authorized by the Judicial Qualifications Commission to create a website, www.justicestevendavid.com. Appellate judges typically may not campaign for retention unless they encounter active opposition.

David said in a recent interview with the Indiana Lawyer that, “It’s important to look at a person’s body of work rather than one decision.” He noted taking part in more than 150 Indiana Supreme Court decisions since his appointment, more than 30 of which he wrote.

In the tea party radio ad, an announcer says, “For hundreds of years, your home was your castle. … As a result of Justice Steven David’s opinion, your home is no longer your castle … Is Justice Steven David a judge Hoosiers want on the Indiana Supreme Court?”

The tea party website, www.indianapolisteaparty.com, says the ad is airing statewide. Representatives of Indianapolis Tea Party Corp. did not respond to messages seeking comment.

David recently published an endorsement on his website from former Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard, who wrote, “It is good for Indiana that Steve David hears the call of public service, and we should vote to retain him in office with confidence that we’re lucky to have him.”

Shepard also endorsed other appellate judges up for retention as well as the process that placed them on the bench. “Indiana’s system of merit appointment and retention has saved us from the sort of unseemly judicial political campaigns so visible even in the states around us. And it has promoted able people to the bench. The public’s knowledge of this fact has produced higher voter participation and higher voter approval over time,” Shepard wrote.

Also on the statewide retention ballot Tuesday are Justice Robert Rucker and Court of Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik. Court of Appeals Judge John Baker will appear on ballots in COA District 1, 53 mostly southern and central Indiana counties excluding Delaware, Hamilton, Madison and Marion counties; and COA judges Michael Barnes and Paul Mathias will appear on ballots in District 3, 20 counties in northern Indiana.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • voters exercise their free speech rights; usual cheerleaders for democracy and free speech frown upon it
    Democracy, democracy, democracy, except when it threatens powers-that-be! If the unwashed masses dare disagree with a law decision abolishing an individual right cherished by free Enlgish and Americans since the Magna Carta, then they are "extremists." Bah!
  • Vote No to Extremisim
    I would say no extremisim should be welcomed. Not from Tea pariers, Move Oners, 99 percenters, or the 47 percenters, NOR any liberalist, conservitivist, libetarianist, greenist, socialist, communist, facist, anarchist, agnostic..ist. No one should be welcomed or have any say or opinion of those in our legal system. U scary!
  • Merit Selection
    Tea Party extremism is not welcome in our Legal System of Justice: RETAIN STEVEN DAVID

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT